User talk:Joshbaumgartner

— billinghurst  sDrewth  00:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Going to be ugly that way—better way available
Hi. Will you take my advice and opinion that progressing the transcription of a work like Dictionary Of American Naval Fighting Ships as a bits and pieces copy and paste is going to be problematic, bitsy, possbily flawed, and never reach completion. Fear not, we have a better way to assist. We can get the scans on Commons, and using our proofreading tools, we can have the pages available here for transcription, and set it up like some of our other compilations to transclude pages like you are doing. Happy to assist though need your guidance, and a little patience.

A quick look at IA shows the https://archive.org/search.php?query=Dictionary%20Of%20American%20Naval%20Fighting%20Ships. As a multi-function work can you tell me whether we are talking one edition, or has it been through multiple editions? Please ping me if you reply. I would encourage you to scan some of the pages in the welcome text as they support and explain what the journey we are about to take. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, I should have looked first. You've been around the traps! Have a look at ia-upload and template:book (ours replicates Commons) for a good basis. We create Index: pages that "pagename" replicate the file upload at Commons, and then we look to utilise sections to transclude.  As an example, look at Thom's Irish Who's Who/Craukshaw, Richard Louis and follow the page link to Page:Thom's Irish who's who.djvu/74 and look at the guts of the page. It has a level of finickiness, though for getting data into WD, and referencing from WP, it is what we have found to be better. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointers...let me take a bit to digest your comments, I am all for a better way to do things! Joshbaumgartner (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am working with the online edition of DANFS located at this link, which is not divided into pages as the old paper editions were. So wondering how best to apply your advice to this.  Joshbaumgartner (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't typically take an online resource where each article is its own edition/version with constant updated, as such it is a dynamic resource. What Wikisource includes tries to express is that we are working with a static edition, and trying to replicate those. So we would work to an available edition, one of those as linked collectively to IA. Happy to assist bring those in, but the linked online version is challenge-able as being out of scope. It is why we don't typically host legislation, multiple versions of constitutions, etc. We are the history, not the living version. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. That is what I was kind of finding too by looking around.  These documents are published with dates of release, but they are not indeed a source that can be stored on Commons or Source, so I understand.  I am using DANFS as a basis for a lot of updates to Wikidata items on the subject ships, and thought it would be a good thing to have these captured within WM, should the Navy decide to no longer provide the online access to them.  That said, it would not be a bad thing to get the older published edition (which is a published book) uploaded and available, even if it is not as current as the data I am using for my work.  Joshbaumgartner (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

If you upload those desired volumes to Commons. [I will leave that pleasure to you.] From there If that works for you, let me know which bits you want to do, which bits scare you and want me to do, and which bits you want to learn by me showing. Of course you may be running away by now, and that is okay too. :-) While I have your attention, can I recommend the creation of a user page at m:user:Joshbaumgartner as that will globally apply at all wikis where you don't have a user page (and remove your redlink look).  It is my experience that for those working at Commons and WD this is beneficial. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do recommend the upload bot and as we can extract that data into our Index: ns pages on creation (see our gadget).
 * I also recommend a naming structure that just changes with volume N towards the end.
 * we create Index: pages, these are the framework for the individual pages, and there are components to tie the vols. together.
 * look at applying text layers
 * (a cheat process that I use for biographical works where we want to dip in and out for specific articles).
 * Plus peripheral aspects of WS related components to add visibility to works and transcriptions.
 * Thanks! No worries, I will be looking into this and some other items in due time.  Joshbaumgartner (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We still need to deal with those bits that you have uploaded, because as they are they are out of scope. If you need a while to think about it, I will mark then as to be deleted, so we don't forget them, and we won't speedy them. If you think it will be over the next several days, we should be okay. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine, they were essentially an experiment, so no problem since I think I will go about it a different way, but doubt I will get to it in the next week or two. Also note the existence of Dictionary Of American Fighting Ships, a seemingly abortive (and misnamed) attempt that has only one ship added.  I think both that and my dabbling can be deleted for now pending a more comprehensive effort.  Joshbaumgartner (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)